Lists the 20 Tom's Hardware top-level sections accepted by headlines queries, returning each section's slug, name, and URL.
Get Tom's Hardware sections. Lists the 20 Tom's Hardware top-level sections that tomshardware-headlines accepts, including 3d-printing, cpus, gpus, monitors, news and reviews. Each section carries its slug, display name and page url. Takes no parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it declares the fixed size (20 items), that it takes no parameters, and the exact shape of each returned item (`slug`, `name`, `url`). Missing only operational trivia (auth, rate limits, caching) that is unlikely to matter for a static enumeration endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope and examples, then return shape. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does (`slug`, display `name`, page `url`) along with cardinality. Combined with the no-parameter note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters,' removing any doubt that a section filter could be passed here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb and resource ('Get Tom's Hardware sections'), quantified scope ('20 top-level sections'), and concrete example slugs. It also distinguishes itself by naming the sibling that consumes the output (`tomshardware-headlines`), so an agent can tell it apart from the other tomshardware_* tools without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement that these are the sections `tomshardware-headlines` accepts makes the intended workflow (call this first to discover valid section values) clear. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming a competing alternative, but the routing context is strong and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.